Polk City Couple's Trial Will Go Forward

Judge Is Critical of Sheriff's Animal Abuse Investigation, But Trial Will Continue

Charles and Diane O'Malley were arrested in May 2010 on criminal charges of keeping dogs in deplorable conditions and deputies seized about 260 dogs from the Polk City couple's home. The O'Malleys operated a nonprofit organization called Mid-Florida Retriever Rescue. Each faces 10 charges of unnecessarily overloading overdriving tormenting or depriving the dogs of sustenance or shelter.

PIERRE DUCHARME | THE LEDGER

By JASON GEARYTHE LEDGER

Published: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 at 11:34 p.m.

Last Modified: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 at 11:34 p.m.

BARTOW | A judge was critical of how deputies handled the largest animal seizure case in Polk County Sheriff's Office history, but decided Wednesday there was enough evidence for a Polk City couple's animal cruelty trial to go forward.

Deputies seized 261 dogs from the home of Charles and Diane O'Malley in May 2010, saying the animals were living in deplorable conditions.

The O'Malleys' lawyer, Mitchell Ladner, told jurors in opening statements earlier this week that his clients' home was dirty, but insisted the dogs were receiving care, including plenty of water, food, shade and exercise.

After prosecutors rested their case against the O'Malleys, Ladner asked Polk County Judge Barry Bennett to dismiss all charges against his clients.

Ladner argued there wasn't sufficient proof to convict the O'Malleys. He told Bennett the Sheriff's Office didn't conduct a thorough investigation and made a rash decision to seize all the dogs.

The judge agreed that the Sheriff's Office investigation was virtually nonexistent, but he thought there was enough evidence for the jury to consider, in particular a veterinarian who described 10 dogs as being emaciated and having other ailments.

The O'Malleys each face 10 counts of cruelty to a dog stemming from the condition of these 10 dogs.

The charges accuse the O'Malleys of unnecessarily overloading, overdriving, tormenting or depriving the dogs of sustenance or shelter. The maximum punishment for each misdemeanor is a year in jail.

Originally, the couple was arrested on 261 misdemeanor charges related to confining animals without sufficient food, water or exercise.

Prosecutors reviewed the case, and they reduced the number and changed the type of charges against the O'Malleys.

The defense began calling witnesses Wednesday. Testimony is expected to continue today.

Bennett isn't the first county judge to criticize the Sheriff's Office handling of the investigation into the O'Malleys.

In October 2010, the couple went to civil court in an effort to have their dogs returned to them.

Polk County Judge Anne Kaylor wrote in an order that the conditions at the O'Malleys' rescue were "less than optimal conditions," but the judge ruled deputies "jumped the gun and took them all."

Kaylor said the couple could have up to 50 dogs at their home.

However, under the terms of their pretrial release in their criminal case, they could not regain custody of the dogs.

<p>BARTOW | A judge was critical of how deputies handled the largest animal seizure case in Polk County Sheriff's Office history, but decided Wednesday there was enough evidence for a Polk City couple's animal cruelty trial to go forward.</p><p>Deputies seized 261 dogs from the home of Charles and Diane O'Malley in May 2010, saying the animals were living in deplorable conditions.</p><p>The O'Malleys' lawyer, Mitchell Ladner, told jurors in opening statements earlier this week that his clients' home was dirty, but insisted the dogs were receiving care, including plenty of water, food, shade and exercise.</p><p>After prosecutors rested their case against the O'Malleys, Ladner asked Polk County Judge Barry Bennett to dismiss all charges against his clients.</p><p>Ladner argued there wasn't sufficient proof to convict the O'Malleys. He told Bennett the Sheriff's Office didn't conduct a thorough investigation and made a rash decision to seize all the dogs.</p><p>The judge agreed that the Sheriff's Office investigation was virtually nonexistent, but he thought there was enough evidence for the jury to consider, in particular a veterinarian who described 10 dogs as being emaciated and having other ailments.</p><p>The O'Malleys each face 10 counts of cruelty to a dog stemming from the condition of these 10 dogs.</p><p>The charges accuse the O'Malleys of unnecessarily overloading, overdriving, tormenting or depriving the dogs of sustenance or shelter. The maximum punishment for each misdemeanor is a year in jail.</p><p>Originally, the couple was arrested on 261 misdemeanor charges related to confining animals without sufficient food, water or exercise.</p><p>Prosecutors reviewed the case, and they reduced the number and changed the type of charges against the O'Malleys.</p><p>The defense began calling witnesses Wednesday. Testimony is expected to continue today.</p><p>Bennett isn't the first county judge to criticize the Sheriff's Office handling of the investigation into the O'Malleys.</p><p>In October 2010, the couple went to civil court in an effort to have their dogs returned to them.</p><p>Polk County Judge Anne Kaylor wrote in an order that the conditions at the O'Malleys' rescue were "less than optimal conditions," but the judge ruled deputies "jumped the gun and took them all."</p><p>Kaylor said the couple could have up to 50 dogs at their home.</p><p>However, under the terms of their pretrial release in their criminal case, they could not regain custody of the dogs.</p>